Annex Q - Consultation questions

The department invites any comment on the policies set out in the consultation document and the provisions of the draft regulations, from any correspondent regardless of interest. However the department is particularly keen to hear from those who will be directly affected by the port security regulations, in particular commercial maritime transport operators. Particular areas of interest for the department are covered by the questions set out below, on which we invite a response. You may answer all, some or none of the questions or submit your own thoughts. Wherever possible please support your responses with some facts or figures that can be cited. Anonymous responses will not be taken into account.

1. How much of a burden do you perceive the new requirements of the proposed Regulations to be?

2. Can you indicate the size of your business and how much it currently costs operationally and administratively to provide security at your port/facility?

3. How much additional cost do you expect to incur from the new security requirements proposed in the draft Regulations?

4. Other than cost implications what impact do you expect the proposed regulations to have on your port facility?

5. What effect will working collaboratively with other port facilities as a port security authority have on your business?

6. At present it is proposed that "port security authorities" are a body corporate as opposed to an unincorporated association. What issues does this raise for your organisation and what alternative would you suggest?

7. To what extent do you think your organisation already meets the requirements of the EC Directive?

8. Will the proposed Regulations have any implications on the health and safety of your port facility?

9. What other agencies or organisations should be included in the term "military" for the purposes of exemption? (Regulation 3)

10. How do you think the port boundary should be determined?

11. As a PFSO, is it likely that the port boundaries are already entirely described in your approved ISPS plans?

12. What do you see as the benefits of designating "port related areas"?

13. Does your current port security committee already cover a wider port area, i.e. more than one ISPS facility/operator?

14. Does your current port security committee make collective decisions about security in the port?

15. Given the requirements of the draft regulations, how easily would your current port security committee "convert" to being a port security authority?

16. How do you see the relationship between a port security authority and the Department for transport? Should the PSA be involved in enforcing compliance on port users?

17. If the port security authority must be a "body corporate", how will this effect your participation?

18. Should the onus lie with the regulated party to apply for PSA membership, or should PSA membership be determined another way?

19. Are the proposed steps for objections to PSA decisions reasonable, particularly in regard to timescales for resolution?

20. Should the PSA have the ability to recover reasonable costs, and if so, how?

21. What information should not be provided, under regulation 9, to the secretary of state?

22. What sensitivities might there be around port facilities providing information to the PSA?

23. Are there any other government organisations that should be listed as "control authorities"?

24. What other powers or capabilities does the PSA need?

25. In terms of the port security assessments, should the department be approving the method, the content, or both?

26. Does your port or port facility already have a comprehensive security risk assessment process that you might seek approval for? If so, please explain.

27. Should the PSA have a duty to notify the department of port security plan implementation failures?

28. Do you consider the timescales set out in regulations 14-17 are appropriate to allow a timely response to the requirements of the regulations?

29. Do you agree that the PSA should be "reviewing" the documents (regulation 19), and if so are the proposed intervals agreeable? If not the PSA, then who, and why?

30. Do you think there are already adequate local, regional, and national exercises to fulfil the requirement under regulation 20? If not, what is missing?

31. Do you agree that the three level security level system should be common to ISPS facilities, AMSA facilities, and any other port related areas?

32. Do you consider the proposed powers for DfT inspectors to be excessive, adequate, or insufficient?

33. Do you consider there is a place for approved "recognised security organisations"? If so, for what function sunder the directive?

34. Does regulation 25 provide extra value in terms of protecting controlled buildings? Do you see designation of controlled buildings as being a useful tactic?

25. Is the proposed definition of "prohibited article suitable to cover likely scenarios?

26. Does regulation 26 sufficiently strengthen the search regime at sea ports? Will this provide greater clarity and confidence?

27. Should "shoes" be included in the list of outer clothing that can be removed (regulation 26(7))? Are there any other articles that should be considered for inclusion?

28. Are enforcement notices a pragmatic method of dealing with compliance issues? What alternatives might there be?

29. Are the circumstances for issuing an enforcement notice suitable? If not, what should be included or excluded?

30. Should a port security officer be able to serve enforcement notices, or similar and if so under what circumstances?

31. Are the circumstances for objection to an enforcement notice adequate?

32. Should all objections to an enforcement notice, issued by the department, be heard by an independent adjudicator, or just at the request of the objector?

33. Is there sufficient assurance in regulation 29 that individual PSA members will be held individually accountable, limiting the risk to other PSA members?

34. As a deterrent, is the penalty for unlawful possession of a prohibited article appropriate?

35. Is there a benefit to introducing a system of security statements in relation to baggage/cargo?

36. Are there any benefits, particularly in terms of personnel security, in introducing a declaration system/offence of making a false statement in relation to obtaining port identity documents?

37. Do you find the provision of a confidentiality clause (regulation 36) sufficient reassurance that your commercially sensitive information will be protected? If not, what alternative would you suggesst?

38. Do you consider that the availability of a defence of "due diligence" to be appropriate? If so, should it apply to both criminal and compliance offences?

39. Are the requirements in the draft for a "port related area" (regulation 4, schedule 4) appropriate in terms of integrating with and adding value to the port security regime?

40. Do you consider that there are already sufficient opportunities available to satisfy the training/drills/exercise requirements (schedule 5) in the wider port?

41. Is there an argument to consider the introduction of recognised security organisations for the purposes of the directive? If so, should RSOs also be used for the purposes of the EC Regulation 725/2004 (ISPS code)?

42. Are the timescales set out in annex l realistic and achievable?

43. In the light of the criteria described in the Macrory report, do you consider the proposed penalties (listed in annex m) appropriate?

44. Do you think that there should be any amendments or additions to the proposed powers available to the police in the draft regulations? Should those powers be extended to any other government officials?

45. Do you consider the penalty for "unauthorised presence in a restricted area" proportionate and adequate? Should the offence be made "recordable"?

46. Should maritime security training be regulated, and if so what courses should be available?

47. Will the port security regulations fundamentally change the current need for security staff? If so, will there be an increase in directly employed staff, or contract staff?

48. If there is a marked increase in demand for contract security staff, especially at higher security levels, can the private security industry respond to the market demand? 

49. How much has your organisation spent on complying with the ISPS code/EC regulation 725/2004? Please indicate what has been spent on administration, staffing, physical security, etc and over what time period 

50. How much do you think the introduction of the port security regulations will cost your organisation? Please indicate what has been spent on administration, staffing, physical security, etc and over what time period.

51. Do you think that more heavy goods vehicle operators or freight handling businesses might need to comply with ADR or RID regulations as a result of the port security directive?

52. How many HGV operators in or near your port may be affected indirectly by the port security regulations?

53. Based on any experience your organisation may have of compliance with ADR, RID, or other transport security regulations what do you think may be the costs of compliance for a "port related area"?

54. Do you think that the port security regulations are going to save any expenditure or effort in any areas?

55. What impact do you consider the port security regulations will have on competition, both in the UK and overseas?

56. Bearing in mind that the proposals are for large, strategic "port security authorities" and aimed at an economy of scale, what do think the effect will be on small businesses?

57. Do the proposals for the port security regulations present any concerns from an equal opportunities or diversity perspective? (this may include race, gender, physical ability, religious, sexual orientation, or any other relevant factor).

58. Are there any human rights concerns or issues raised by the proposals for the port security regulations?

59. How do you think the proposals will impact on the rural economy or isolated communities such as islands?

60. Are there any aspects of the proposals that can be improved with regard to impact on environmental protection and carbon emmissions?

61. Considering that a full consultation exercise took place on the negotiation of the EC Directive in March 2004, that there is a 12 week consultation period on these draft regulations, and that any future designation orders will also have their own consultation period, do you feel that adequate steps have been taken to consult and involve the public in this process?

62. The EC Directive requires that where a roll on/roll off ferry operation has a fixed route between the UK and another European state, that other European state shall be involved in the ports' security assessment process. Please comment.

63. Arriving at these draft regulations has taken some time in order to arrive at a solution that is flexible and will deliver a practical benefit. Has your organisation suffered or been disadvantaged as a direct result of the EC directive not being fully in force by June 2007? If so, please quantify.

64. The Home Secretary recently announced that some airport workers would be amongst the first to be required to have compulsory national identity cards. Would there be any benefits to the sea port industry in a similar approach?

65. Some sea ports operate their own port constabularies. They have full constabulary powers within the port and surrounding area, and cooperate with the local police. In the late 1980's many ports dissolved their own constabularies as private secureity was seen as a more economic option. Do you think that the further development of port security regulation, or the increasing cost of private security might prompt your port to consider having its own port constabulary?

66. Do you think that the proposals for ports and port security authorites will make accessing and obtaining support from government security organisations easier?

67. If there are other ISPS port facilities within a 2 mile radius of your business, are there any with whom you would not cooperate on security matters? If yes, then please explain why.

70. Are there any security measures currently required by the department that you do not feel are beneficial? If so, please epxlain why.

71. Are there any security measures that you feel should be introduced by the department, that currently are not required. If so, please explain why.

72. Are there any categories of port business or port users that you feel are not adequately regulated, taking into account the proposals in the draft regulations, and if so, why?

73. If port security authorities needed public liability insurance, how much do you think this woud cost?

74. What could be done to improve communications between the department and the port industry on security and threat matters?

75. Once appointed, do you think that the official "port security officers" should be issued with an identity document by the department to assist in verifying their status when dealing with other government agencies?